Sunday, June 15, 2025

I’m Unionizing Amazon for My Mom and Other American Families



 June 12, 2025

JaneƩ Roberts is a Flex Associate and Amazon Teamster at the DCK6 facility in San Francisco.

The Global Garrison State: How US Militarism Is Built Into Its DNA

Peter Harris offers a rare view into the domestic forces driving the relentless expansion of the US war state and a compelling roadmap for change

 Posted on

In Why America Can’t Retrench (And How It Might), Peter Harris suggests that America’s worldwide posture is less a strategic choice than a default ingrained in its DNA, where an imperial presidency, a sprawling military-industrial complex, and a political culture punishing perceived weaknesses perpetuate the status quo. Harris is a non-resident fellow at Defense Priorities and an associate professor of political science at Colorado State University. With an impressive synthesis of historical context and institutional critique, he explores why any pullback from the US’ military primacy is almost unthinkable within the current political structure. He observes that Americans rarely get to choose from a true range of options on foreign policy.

The US expanded in six waves, beginning with the annexation of islands in the Caribbean and Pacific, followed by acquisitions like the Philippines and involvement in World War I. World War II and the Cold War saw further surges in US influence, with the establishment of a vast, enduring military presence across Europe, Asia, and beyond to counter global threats. Since 1990, this expanded empire has driven ambitious NATO growth, the ‘forever wars’ in the Middle East, and a strategic pivot to the Indo-Pacific in pursuit of global hegemony. Harris illustrates how the nationalist fevers after external shocks like Pearl Harbor and 9/11 fueled an insatiable war state.

The US has consistently expanded its global reach, steadily increasing its overseas commitments. Moments of withdrawal – like from the Philippines, Vietnam and Afghanistan – were more than offset by increased interventionism elsewhere. Over 165 years, growing US influence abroad has created a pronounced, if nonlinear, trend of expansionism. Harris demonstrates that the US’ “immense forward presence is a holdover from the World War II and Cold War eras, when US military personnel were sent in their millions to defeat fascism and then deter communist expansion”. The militarization of American society has created a self-reinforcing system that makes meaningful retrenchment nearly impossible.

Harris critically examines how entrenched military primacy has eroded checks and balances on the the executive branch and prioritized exorbitantly costly war capacities over the welfare of Americans. His in-depth analysis exposes how deeply militarization is woven into the fabric of US governance. With more than three million employees the Department of Defense is the world’s largest employer. Upon the Soviet Union’s collapse, the US had an opportunity to scale back its military role abroad, yet troop reductions occurred only in Europe, countered by NATO expansion and involvement in the Yugoslav Wars. Harris writes: “Over 800 overseas bases, approximately 170,000 active-­duty military personnel deployed in more than eighty countries and territories (plus in excess of a million stationed at home), a defense budget surpassing $850 billion, and treaty-­based alliances with more than one quarter of the world’s s­tates – none of these statistics makes obvious sense in the absence of an existential threat to national security.”

Its overambitious strategic posture – unique among world powers – requires the US to maintain overwhelming military advantages in every world region. As the international system shifts toward multi-polarity and rising powers like China and Russia challenge US dominance, such a posture becomes increasingly dangerous.

Harris demonstrates that the US has configured much of its public sector around projecting power abroad, positioning military primacy as the backbone of its identity. The “global garrison state” is build on corruption at home. In 2015, RAND researchers found the Army invested roughly $121 million per year in the average congressional district, supporting about 4,200 jobs, creating strong support for high defense spending as communities depend on the military for economic stability. The book examines how hawkish political elites form a symbiotic relationship with corporate media, influential think tanks, the arms industry, foreign policy lobbies and powerful business interests.

Harris discusses how some advocates of US global dominance push an expansive, vague vision of global security, while others emphasize values like democracy, women’s rights or free markets. The result is “a limitless range of dimensions along which the United States wants to order the rest of the ­world”. Harris critiques a pernicious form of American universal irredentism, which “posits the entire unfree world as unredeemed and awaiting liberation.” This arrogant mindset echoes the paternalistic hubris of past European colonial powers, who claimed to bring civilization to the so-called ‘barbarians’. “All peoples languishing under the yolk of authoritarianism are deserving of incorporation into the US-led, enlightened, and ‘civilized’ international order.” This nearly sacrosanct narrative “helps to justify the gargantuan and neverending series of military interventions.”

Harris outlines a dual vision for deep reform through “domestic renewal” and “internationalism anew.” His proposals for strengthening congressional oversight, reshaping the two-party system into a more representative democracy, and increasing transparency in foreign policy decision-making are particularly relevant for those seeking a more peaceful foreign policy. He envisions offshore balancing as a grand strategy of “leading from behind” where the US provides military and economic support to allies, empowering them to manage their own regional security. The core idea is to shift the primary defense responsibility to allies who have a more immediate stake in their regions.

Harris advocates greater political pluralism, a shift from military primacy to diplomacy and multilateralism and a dramatic downsizing of the largely unaccountable military-industrial complex with its “vast army of technocrats whose expertise is geared toward the management of violence”. The book lays out a framework for a United States that engages the world through partnership rather than dominance.

Harris delves into the perspectives of critics across the political spectrum: left-wing, conservative, libertarian, and realist, arguing that they might find enough common ground to form alliances capable of challenging the status quo. He believes “anti-primacy groups are tangible, well-established, and perhaps growing.” Only radical reforms in US politics, he contends, can allow critical voices that have been marginalized since America’s entry into World War II to gain a foothold within state institutions.

Harris advises the retrenchment movement to root its arguments in American values and patriotism rather than casting the US solely as an imperial oppressor – an image likely to alienate the wider public. This approach may also explain why he refrains from detailing US atrocities in his book. Although he recognizes that US interventions breed anger and resentment globally, he doesn’t discuss the vast toll of innocent lives lost to these actions, which drive the cycles of violence. Moral outrage over war crimes has powered effective anti-war movements from Vietnam to Iraq to Gaza, and most Americans strongly oppose their government committing crimes in their name. A prudent approach for the retrenchment camp would balance the love of country with an honest reckoning of the US empire’s dark side.

Harris’ essential book offers a pragmatic blueprint for a more democratic and thriving America that spreads its values globally, choosing diplomacy over force.

Michael Holmes is a German-American freelance journalist specializing in global conflicts and modern history. His work has appeared in Neue Zürcher Zeitung – the Swiss newspaper of record – Responsible Statecraft, Psychologie Heute, taz, Welt, and other outlets. He regularly conducts interviews for NachDenkSeiten.  He has reported on and travelled to over 70 countries, including Iraq, Iran, Palestine, Lebanon, Ukraine, Kashmir, Hong Kong, Mexico, and Uganda.  He is based in Potsdam, Germany.

America’s Off-Shore Concentration Camps



 June 12, 2025

Photograph Source: Casa Presidencial – CC0

Our offshore concentration camps, for now, are in El Salvador and GuantĆ”namo Bay, Cuba. But don’t expect them to remain there. Once they are normalized, not only for U.S.-deported immigrants and residents, but U.S. citizens, they will migrate to the homeland. It is a very short leap from our prisons, already rife with abuse and mistreatment, to concentration camps, where those held are cut off from the outside world — “disappeared” — denied legal representation and crammed into fetid, overcrowded cells.

Prisoners in the camps in El Salvador are forced to sleep on the floor or in solitary confinement in the dark. Many suffer from tuberculosis, fungal infections, scabies, severe malnutrition and chronic digestive illnesses. The inmates, including over 3,000 children, are fed rancid food. They endure beatings. They are tortured, including by water-boarding or being forced naked into barrels of ice-cold water, according to Human Rights Watch. In 2023, the State Department described imprisonment as “life-threatening,” and that was before the Salvadoran government declared a “state of exception” in March 2022. The situation has been greatly “exacerbated,” the State Department notes, by the “addition of 72,000 detainees under the state of exception.” Some 375 people have died in the camps since the state of exception was established, part of El Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele’s “war on gangs,” according to the local human rights group Socorro JurĆ­dico Humanitario.

These camps — the “Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo” (Center for Terrorism Confinement) known as CECOT, to which U.S. deportees are being sent, holds some 40,000 people — are the model, the harbinger of what awaits us.

Metal worker and union member Kilmar Ɓbrego GarcĆ­a, who was abducted in front of his five-year-old son on March 12, 2025, was accused of being a gang member and sent to El Salvador. The Supreme Court agreed with District Judge Paula Xinis who found that GarcĆ­a’s deportation was an “illegal act.” Trump officials blamed their deportation of GarcĆ­a on an “administrative error.” Xinis ordered the Trump administration to “facilitate” his return. But that does not mean he is coming back.

“I hope you’re not suggesting that I smuggle a terrorist into the United States,” Bukele told the press at a White House meeting with Trump. “How can I smuggle — how can I return him to the United States? Like, I smuggle him into the United States? Well, of course I’m not going to do it…the question is preposterous.”

This is the future. Once a segment of the population is demonized — including U.S. citizens Trump labels “homegrown criminals” — once they are stripped of their humanity, once they embody evil and are seen as an existential threat, the end result is that these human “contaminants” are removed from society. Guilt or innocence, at least under the law, is irrelevant. Citizenship offers no protection.

“The first essential step on the road to total domination is to kill the juridical person in man,” writes Hannah Arendt in “The Origins of Totalitarianism.” “This was done, on the one hand, by putting certain categories of people outside the protection of the law and forcing at the same time, through the instrument of denationalization, the nontotalitarian world into recognition of lawlessness; it was done, on the other, by placing the concentration camp outside the normal penal system, and by selecting inmates outside the normal judicial procedure in which a definite crime entails a predictable penalty.”

Those who build concentration camps build societies of fear. They issue relentless warnings of mortal danger, whether from immigrants, Muslims, traitors, criminals or terrorists. Fear spreads slowly, like a sulfurous gas, until it infects all social interactions and induces paralysis. It takes time. In the first years of the Third Reich, the Nazis operated ten camps with about 10,000 inmates. But once they managed to crush all competing centers of power — labor unions, political parties, an independent press, universities and the Catholic and Protestant churches — the concentration camp system exploded. By 1939, when World War II broke out, the Nazis were running over 100 concentration camps with some one million inmates. Death camps followed.

Those that create these camps give them wide publicity. They are designed to intimidate. Their brutality is their selling point. Dachau, the first Nazi concentration camp, was not, as Richard Evans writes in “The Coming of The Third Reich” “an improvised solution to an unexpected problem of overcrowding in the goals, but a long-planned measure that the Nazis had envisioned virtually from the very beginning. It was widely publicized and reported in the local, regional and national press, and served as a stark warning to anyone contemplating offering resistance to the Nazi regime.”

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents, wearing plainclothes and circling neighborhoods in unmarked cars, kidnap legal residents such asMahmoud Khalil. These abductions replicate those I witnessed on streets of Santiago, Chile under the dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet, or in San Salvador, El Salvador’s capital, during the military dictatorship.

ICE is swiftly evolving into our homegrown version of the Gestapo or The People’s Commissariat for Internal Affairs (NKVD). It oversees 200 detention facilities. It is a formidable domestic surveillance agency that has amassed data on most Americans, according to a report compiled by The Center of Privacy & Technology at Georgetown.

“By reaching into the digital records of state and local governments and buying databases with billions of data points from private companies, ICE has created a surveillance infrastructure that enables it to pull detailed dossiers on nearly anyone, seemingly at any time,” the report reads. “In its efforts to arrest and deport, ICE has — without any judicial, legislative or public oversight — reached into datasets containing personal information about the vast majority of people living in the U.S., whose records can end up in the hands of immigration enforcement simply because they apply for driver’s licenses; drive on the roads; or sign up with their local utilities to get access to heat, water and electricity.”

Those abducted, including the Turkish national and PhD student at Tufts University, Rümeysa Ɩztürk, are accused of amorphous behaviour such as “engaging in activities in support of Hamas.” But this is a subterfuge, accusations no more real than the invented crimes under Stalinism where people were accused of belonging to the old order — Kulaks or members of the petit bourgeoisie — or were convicted for plotting to overthrow the regime as Trotskyites, Titoites, agents of capitalism or saboteurs, known as “wreckers.” Once a category of people is targeted, the crimes they are charged with, if they are charged at all, are almost always fabrications.

Concentration camp inmates are severed from the outside world. They are disappeared. Erased. They are treated as if they never existed. Nearly all efforts to obtain information about them are met with silence. Even their death, should they die in custody, becomes anonymous, as if they were never born.

Those who run concentration camps, as Hannah Arendt writes, are people without the curiosity or the mental capacity to form opinions. They don’t, she notes, “even know any more what it means to be convinced.” They simply obey, conditioned to act as “perverted animals.” They are intoxicated by the God-like power they have to turn human beings into quivering flocks of sheep.

The goal of any concentration camp system is to destroy all individual traits, to mold people into fearful, docile, obedient masses. The first camps are training grounds for prison guards and ICE agents. They master the brutal techniques designed to infantilize inmates, an infantilization that soon warps the wider society.

The 250 purported Venezuelan gang members shipped to El Salvador in defiance of a federal court were denied due process. They were summarily herded onto planes, which ignored the judge’s order to turn back, and once they arrived, were stripped, beaten and had their heads shaved. Shaved heads are a feature of all concentration camps. The excuse is lice. But of course it is about depersonalization and why they are in uniforms and identified by numbers.

The autocrat openly revels in the cruelty. “I look forward to watching the sick terrorist thugs get 20 year jail sentences for what they are doing to Elon Musk and Tesla,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “Perhaps they could serve them in the prisons of El Salvador, which have become so recently famous for such lovely conditions!”

Those that build concentration camps are proud of them. They show them off to the press, or at least the sycophants posing as the press. Secretary for Homeland Security Kristi Noem, who posted a video of herself visiting the El Salvadoran prison, used the shirtless and head shaved inmates as a stage prop for her threats against immigrants. If fascism does one thing well, it is spectacle.

First they come for the immigrants. Then they come for the activists on foreign student visas on college campuses. Then they come for green cardholders. Next are the U.S. citizens who fight Israeli genocide or the creeping fascism. Then they come for you. Not because you broke the law. But because the monstrous machine of terror needs a constant supply of victims to sustain itself.

Totalitarian regimes survive by eternally battling mortal, existential threats. Once one threat is eradicated, they invent another. They mock the rule of law. Judges, until they are purged, may decry this lawlessness, but they have no mechanism to enforce their rulings. The Department of Justice, turned over to the Trump sycophant Pam Bondi, is, as in all autocracies, designed to block enforcement, not facilitate it. There are no legal impediments left to protect us. We know where this is going. We have seen it before. And it is not good.

Chris Hedges is the former Pulitzer Prize–winning Middle East Bureau Chief for The New York Times. An Arabic speaker, he spent seven years covering the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, much of that time in Gaza. Author of 14 books, his most recent are The Greatest Evil Is War and A Genocide Foretold: Reporting on Survival and Resistance in Occupied Palestine.

Victory for right, neo-fascists in second place in Portuguese elections

Sunday 15 June 2025, by Daniel Borges


The results of the Portuguese parliamentary elections on 18 May 2025 mark a turning point in the country’s politics. The traditional right was comfortably in the lead and the Socialist Party has fewer deputies than the far right (after counting the votes of the emigrant constituencies). The right-wing parties as a whole won two-thirds of the seats in the Assembly, while the left obtained the lowest result in its history.


All the parties to the left of the PS recorded their lowest results. Livre (European Greens) saw a slight increase, the Communists (PCP) lost about 20,000 votes and reached their lowest level, and the Left Bloc lost more than half of the votes it had obtained in the 2024 elections, electing only one MP, Mariana MortƔgua.

Racist agenda

The far right has conquered most of the southern districts of the country, traditional bastions of the left, and has gained ground among its voters. It is in the countryside and former industrial areas that Chega finds the most support, with a programme of anti-immigrant and anti-Gypsy resentment that manages to mobilise votes.

In the context of a crisis provoked by the Prime Minister himself — who kept a personal company to accept company contracts (against his exclusive duties) — the right managed to put the issue of immigration at the center of the debate, which dominated xenophobic discourse and attracted votes. Immigrants have become the scapegoat for the housing crisis caused by speculation and for the problems of health systems, education and public services that are underfunded and attacked by private interests. Moreover, they have become the centre of a culture war that dragged the Socialist Party toward a right-wing stance on the issue.

Militarism, authoritarianism and techno-policing

The race to war, under Washington’s leadership, dominates European politics and guides the European Union’s economic project. In addition to immigration, militarist rhetoric also marked the elections. Most parties have reached a consensus on loyalty to NATO, increased military spending and escalation of armaments, leaving the anti-capitalist parties isolated.

With the far right overtaking the Socialist Party for the first time, Portuguese politics is truly entering a new phase. Michael Lƶwy said a few years ago that the left had not foreseen the "brown wave" in Europe, the United States and Brazil. Today, we can no longer say that we were not warned.

The authoritarian drift in the context of the crisis of capitalist accumulation is accompanied by forms of technological domination, through digital socialization and the platformization of labor, with algorithms controlled by an all-powerful techno-oligarchy at the service of the far right.

Convergence and unity resistance

In this national and international political panorama, and with more than two-thirds of parliamentary deputies sitting on the benches of the right and far right, it becomes possible for the first time in 50 years to revise the Constitution without the participation of the Socialist Party. The fight against this project of revenge on April 25, 1974 calls for broad convergences, including in the perspective of the presidential election of January 2026.

It is imperative to resist immediately, but also to build a strong left wing to fight back. The weakened Socialist Party will have only one candidate for its leadership, JosĆ© LuĆ­s Carneiro, a former minister linked to the right wing of the party, who will tend to facilitate the viability of the right-wing government on the grounds of removing the far right from power. This context, if confirmed, will make Chega — with 22% of the vote the second largest party in Parliament — the main reference for the opposition.

The municipal elections are on the immediate horizon. The risk is the transformation of Chega into a more territorially anchored force, the continuation of the shift to the right and the disappearance of the PCP as a governing force (it is still in the lead in 19 municipalities). The Left Bloc is committed to programming agreements for convergences on the left, whether with the PS in the capital to defeat Carlos Moedas, or to assert municipal alternatives on the left, whenever possible with the PCP, Livre and the PAN (an environmentalist pro-animal welfare party).

28 May 2025

Translated by International Viewpoint from l’Anticapitaliste.

Attached documentsvictory-for-right-neo-fascists-in-second-place-in_a9042.pdf (PDF - 907 KiB)
Extraction PDF [->article9042]

Portugal
Hard questions for Left Bloc after a terrible parliamentary election
“We want to be able to look further than the end of the month”
The Carnation Revolution of Portugal Today: The New Challenge from the Far-Right
Europe in the Trump-Putin Axis Trap
Austerity or Raising the Minimum Wage: Catarina Martins on Portugal’s Experience

Daniel Borges is a youth leader of the Left Bloc and the anti-capitalist current


International Viewpoint is published under the responsibility of the Bureau of the Fourth International. Signed articles do not necessarily reflect editorial policy. Articles can be reprinted with acknowledgement, and a live link if possible.